Subject:  Re: Wow, just wow |
Author:
Gina
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 05:03:22 10/05/09 Mon
In reply to:
Gina
's message, "Opps, I have to say..." on 04:43:02 10/05/09 Mon
This was in responce to the above comments I posted. Once again, I have to say, I stand with the same point of view as these people.
Now you knopw why I find this forum so intriguing too.
first responce....
Regarding your being disturbed by some element in the Bermuda Triangle, allow me to elaborate. Jolie represents a dark, empty, malevolent force who was motivated by the desire to destroy something good (the good, popular girl's status and happiness). But because no human being could continue to function by knowing full well it is motivated solely by malice toward the good and therefore is evil, the creature has to create rationalizations and excuses for itself so that it and others would see it as something else. The creature needs to believe that it possesses good elements, that it has black [i]and[/i] white elements, and that it is therefore no worse than other human beings, who are also mixed in character. The only difference, according to the creature, is that everyone else is a hypocrite.
[b]The caring, concerned humanitarian image was created, a laughable joke that would have been universally panned if it were not for her fellow subjectivists in Hollywood, the media, and organizations like the U.N. who resent "the rules" and the good and see Jolie as an unnamed cause. That cause is the creation of a competitor morality whereby one can do whatever one wants, no matter how detestable, destructive, and immoral, yet still achieve moral stature and worldly success if one only expresses or shows loyalty to altruistic notions and causes.[/b] Whether one actually sacrifices or suffers for the objects of concern is of no relevance, as is whether the objects of concern are morally clean themselves and deserving of sympathy, as is who else gets sacrified or pays the tab for one's "compassion"; the point is that one stands there and verbally utters notions of compassion and apparently [i]feels[/i] bad for others. Who can argue with noble emotions? There is Angelina Jolie standing there with her neck craned and her eyes moist and her lips quivering at the sight of some starving obese Arab woman who is wailing with her arms outstretched to the heavens. The benevolent, Theresa-like woman who has so much, as evidenced by the glamorous makeup, hugging the ugly, sickly child in a setting of squalor. A picture is not merely worth a thousand words: The picture is the only story, the final, unanswerable argument.
This is supposed to be The Redemption for the depraved: The unprovable, unquantified good will for "the less fortunate."
Mark my words. The subjectivists of the world have been the ones pumping and promoting Jolie from the moment she walked on-set and starting luring Pitt. The end result is evil creeping into the culture. This is what you have sensed in so many words, and that is what alarms you. Had the media simply dismissed her antics, you would not have been so disturbed by them. But instead, the media elevated them into a shrine, as best it possibly could under the circumstances.
But take heart. Because it is inherently corrupt, subjectivism eventually turns on itself. Jolie's tactics are getting to be too much even for her supporters. Self-destruction is written in the genetic code of subjectivism. It is only a matter of time.
----------------------------------------------------------
Wow. Thank you. Talking about a brilliant post- this is wonderful. I could not agree more. That is the crux of my issue with this farce of a union and the self aggrandizement of both these bankrupt people. Jolie is compulsively doing these putative humanitarian acts to meet her own needs. She does it to quell her own guilt, emptiness, and demons, which is consistent with her lack of boundaries and a stable personality structure. Frankly, I do not think she is capable of any peer type of relationship. She has to feel superior and what is driving that bus for her these days is her "humanitarian work." This woman is not selfless-- she is the antithesis. A humanitarian or selfless person would not acquire five additional children in about three years time and subject them to the constant moving, demographic changes, and chaos for which this woman is responsible. She also does not cajole a married man into making an instant family with her because she knows that is his Achilles' Heel. A humanitarian would not do that horrific W Mag Spread with a married man going though a divorce with a bereaved wife. I find it obscenely ironic that Angelina Jolie is poised to play Dagny Taggart in the film adaptation of Ayn Rand's novel, Atlas Shrugged. She'll probably talk about that character and her role with a straight face too. I can't quite decide if she is completely insightless or that she simply believes she is so powerful and the public so stupid that no one (who mattered) would point out exactly what Dagny Taggart would think of Angelina Jolie. On another point, I am not a prude, but it is disturbing how the media have held these two up so piously, for instance calling them "Family of the Year" etc. They will not dare mention the genesis of the couple or anything else. It's some code that you don't point those things out about this enlightened and highly evolved couple who really is too pretty, smart, and humane to be bothered with cultural norms or social discourse. The sycophants just fall all over themselves. Perhaps there is a slim chance there is a media or showbiz outlier who possesses critical thinking skills, but she or he would likely be too fearful to question what this couple has done and is doing. I was reading a novel today and I thought this quote in the text was apropos: "What survives is only what we are able to communicate. Moral knowledge that remains secret, eventually ceases to be knowledge. Although it may still be moral."
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 